Steven Hawkins has stated that real time started at the pre Big Bang singularity where ALL the laws of physics fail.

In other words it what I've been saying: the existence of time breaks all the laws of physics.

Science MUST stay with the Laws of the universe. Breaking those laws or believing thing outside of those laws is Religion. Steven Hawkins belief of the start of time is his personal religion. Not science.

<quoted text>Say wordy what do you think of this?Steven Hawkins has stated that real time started at the pre Big Bang singularity where ALL the laws of physics fail.In other words it what I've been saying: the existence of time breaks all the laws of physics.Science MUST stay with the Laws of the universe. Breaking those laws or believing thing outside of those laws is Religion. Steven Hawkins belief of the start of time is his personal religion.Not science.

<quoted text>Say wordy what do you think of this?Steven Hawkins has stated that real time started at the pre Big Bang singularity where ALL the laws of physics fail.In other words it what I've been saying: the existence of time breaks all the laws of physics.Science MUST stay with the Laws of the universe. Breaking those laws or believing thing outside of those laws is Religion. Steven Hawkins belief of the start of time is his personal religion.Not science.

<quoted text>All of the things talked about are backed up by very solid circumstantial evidence.You may not think circumstantial evidence is any good, but more then a few criminals were sent to prison or their deaths by it. Ask a cop....eyewitness testimony does not even compare to circumstantial evidence.The most important assertion I made is that there was no Adam and Eve as written in the Bible. This has tremendous implication to current Christian dogma.No Adam and Eve equals no 'original sin'. Also puts the lie to Jesus having mention them in the New Testament....one fictional character talking about 2 fictional characters from a Hebrew myth.If there was no 'original sin', just exactly what was the mission of Jesus??

Adam and Eve are a story. You cannot prove an unverified story happened or didn't happen. There is no evidence to show a person named Moses didn't exist. There is no evidence to show a person named Jesus didn't exist. There is no evidence to prove an exodus of Israelites from Egypt didn't happen.The fact is that for more than 2000 years people did write about a person named Moses. And that's more circumstantial evidence for his existence than you'll ever have for his non-existence.There is no such thing as having 'solid evidence' to prove the 'nonexistence' of something/someone as you claim it.The fact that you believe there was no Adam or Eve as the Bible writer describes them is your opinion. The fact is that several ancient cultures predating 2000 years ago all had similar stories of the first two parents of the human family. That doesn't make the story true any more then it makes it a lie. It's an unproved story.

Yeah, sure do. I hear it all the time when I'm told my existence comes from non-organic matter that achieved an organic state to become biological self producing organisms and in trillions of years of never taking place it happened a single time on this planet. Yeah, I'm well aware of highly exaggerated bull*hit theories of how we came to be. Why?

<quoted text>"What the writer is actually describing" can easily be merely a large scale version of what ancients already observed. Even in the desert there are springs where water emerges from a hole in the ground. And there have been geysers around too, though I am not sure if there were any in the Middle East at the time.To an ancient, the existence of well and springs was more than enough evidence that the lower layers of Earth were watery. They did not need to know a anything about mid ocean vents to write what they did.But YOU know about them, so you see mid-ocean vents when you read the Bible prose.

No. The writer did in fact describe something taking place in the 'great deep'(an oddly correct guess)and described that thing as a 'fountain'. And man made fountains did exist 2000 years ago. So the question remains why the writer didn't state the flooding happened on land from springs gushing like tall fountains of water which would have been more reasonable to state then it taking place in the great deep of the seas/oceans.

<quoted text>Adam and Eve are a story. You cannot prove an unverified story happened or didn't happen. There is no evidence to show a person named Moses didn't exist. There is no evidence to show a person named Jesus didn't exist. There is no evidence to prove an exodus of Israelites from Egypt didn't happen. The fact is that for more than 2000 years people did write about a person named Moses. And that's more circumstantial evidence for his existence than you'll ever have for his non-existence.There is no such thing as having 'solid evidence' to prove the 'nonexistence' of something/someone as you claim it.The fact that you believe there was no Adam or Eve as the Bible writer describes them is your opinion. The fact is that several ancient cultures predating 2000 years ago all had similar stories of the first two parents of the human family. That doesn't make the story true any more then it makes it a lie. It's an unproved story.

You are attempting to use the can't prove a negative principle as an argument. While this may be true, what it also means is that you have no evidence. Also in the case of Adam and Eve, the story is quite simply NOT genetically viable, unless there were already plenty of other humans around for them to reproduce with. Therefore the argument would have to change from "You can't prove Adam and Eve didn't happen." to "You can't prove Adam and Eve weren't made by magic!"

You're right. We can't. Meanwhile back in the real world, Adam and Eve is just that - a story.

<quoted text>No. The writer did in fact describe something taking place in the 'great deep'(an oddly correct guess)and described that thing as a 'fountain'. And man made fountains did exist 2000 years ago.So the question remains why the writer didn't state the flooding happened on land from springs gushing like tall fountains of water which would have been more reasonable to state then it taking place in the great deep of the seas/oceans.

You can invoke all the springs, geysers and fountains you like. There never was a global flood.

Unless it was done by magic.

In which case you can stop pretending to have evidence, because evidence doesn't matter when your position involves magic.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.